The hate industry, Islam and Islamophobia

All three Abrahamic religions have violence in their scriptures and commendable parts in their scriptures. The Enlightenment defanged Christianity and followers began sweeping the violent parts under the rug and interpreting the violent verses in light of the more commendable ones. We're seeing the same thing happen now with Islam in the West. There are millions of Muslims in the US. If even half of a percent of them were violent we'd see terrorist attacks every day.

The Christian Reformation was quite bloody. The Reformers were fond of slaughtering infidels.

 

Who is the crock?

 

No, i did answer the question. You are ignoring because you are looking to argue

 

Anyone whe brings up the word islamiphobe...

 

That's correct, you provide AN answer. You said that you "believe that the concept of radical Islam is misleading" and "radical Muslims, not radical Islam should be compared to Nazism." You did not say whether you think that means that Curt Schilling contributed to the "hate industry" by comparing radical Islam to Nazism. It's not complicated.

 

Who is Curt Schilling anyway?

 

Anyone who claims that Islam is a religion of terrorism is a crock too. The same as a guy will claim that Christianity is terrorism. They are all crooks in my opinion.

 

Those Muslim infidels came at the Reformation and Luther on two fronts: over the Pyrenees and up the Balkans.

 

I wasn't talking about the Muslim "infidels." I was talking about their fellow Christians. Reformers killed people, or supported the suppression of people, who posed no threat to them at all. Luther supported the violent suppression of blasphemers/heretics, especially Anabaptists. Calvin supported the execution of Unitarians. Hell, Puritans even hanged Quakers . . . who were complete pacifists.

 

Well yeah, those were harsh times. Calvin had a lot of spies in Geneva. If you said grace wrong and a spy heard it you were brought before the Council. It was possible after a few infractions that you could be banished from the city and lose your real estate. Adultery was punished by nine day's confinement on bread and water for both, death for a second offense. But the Reformers and the Catholics cooperated to defeat the Muslim attacks.

 

And anyone who accepts that has an excuse no longer has the means for criticizing Muslim terrorists.

Servetus was not a spy, or even accused of being a spy. He visited Geneva to escape persecution from Catholics; Calvin had him burned at the stake with a crown of sulphur, not for being a spy, but for supposed blasphemy.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the examples I gave, except to further prove that the Reformers were still violent barbarians.

Which is disgusting enough, but still not as bad as the examples I provided and you are now running away from

More knuckle-dragging barbarity, more evasion.

So a couple of groups of bloodthirsty savages combined to stop another. Great. How does that excuse their own bloodthirsty savagery again?

 

Well, yeah, Calvin had Servetus burned on green wood, to prolong the agony and the spectacle.

But when they're coming into your country to conquer you you got to kill them as fast as you can, as many as you can, and keep killing them as you drive them out. Like the Russians did to Napoleon's and Hitler's armies. Harsh is beautiful.

 

. . . Servetus and his fellow Unitarians (who . . . you do realize weren't Muslims . . . right?) were not "coming into their country to conquer." He came hoping Calvin would be less of a terrorist than the Catholics. He was wrong. Calvin was even more of a terrorist, as you just attested to. If you believe that "harsh is beautiful," even when it is aimed at people who pose no threat to you, you are no different from the Muslim extremists you criticize. You are two sides of the exact same coin.

I can't believe I have to ask this to a theoretically rational adult, but you do realize it isn't okay to hang people, slaughter them, or burn them to death (green wood or no) just because you have a theological disagreement with them . . . right? Please tell me you understand this. Your post above signals otherwise.

 

It was harsh times. Servetus was absolutely stupid to walk into Calvin's territory. That he wouldn't long breathe was entirely predictable. That don't make Calvin right, but stupid usually has to pay. Anyway it was common to be drawn and quartered for felonies, or have your eyes burned out with red hot irons for sedition. It was harsh times. The Muslims were skinning people alive.

 

I agree, islam just gets used by terrorists more than most other religions.

 

This particular excuse for murder has already been dismantled. But keep pushing it. It reveals your murder and terrorist apologetics for what it is. All a Muslim terrorist has to do is say "these are harsh times" and you now have no means to criticize them for murder. I'm glad rational human beings have higher standards than that.

Lol, now your argument is that it was stupid for Servetus to assume Calvin wasn't a murderous terrorist? Are you even following your own arguements.

Because the Reformers were bloodthirsty terrorists willing to slaughter the innocent in the name of terrorism . . . and here you are making excuses for their acts of murder. Calvinist Genova was no different from ISIS. Keep worshipping his murder while pretending you have a problem with the other.

Lol . . . so now your defense of Protestantism is that you are willing to criticize those who trusted Protestants and hoped they wouldn't be murderers . . . but you refuse to criticize Protestants for the actual murder.

If we were to accept your "logic" (and no rational person should), then we'd have to criticize the victims of ISIS and not ISIS itself. How depraved would we have to be for that? And yet that's exactly what you argue in terms of Protestant violenct

Anyone who accepts that as an excuse has no means for criticizing Muslims of the time. You have no basis to criticize torture and murder. You are right here engaging in terrorist apologetics.

Again, the Reformers were bloodthirsty terrorists willing to slaughter the innocent in the name of terrorism . . . and here you are making excuses for their acts of murder.

And Protestants were just as bad . . . a fact you can't face because you value feels over facts, apparently.

I look forward to the next evasion and the next excuse for murder while pretending you have problems with murder when Muslims do it.

 

"All a Muslim terrorist has to do is say "these are harsh times" and you now have no means to criticize them for murder."

A Muslim doesn't have to say anything. If you're an infidel he can kill you and be in good standing with his Qu'ran.

I'm not defending Calvin. I'm just saying, like Walter Cronkite, "And that's the way it was in 1553."

 

But your justification works at any point in time. All anyone has to say is "but things are tough" and they can justify murder, or any other action. You have no basis for criticizing their actions. In fact, you have attempted to justify murder, as has been shown . . . unless you'd like to take that back, which I would happily accept.

 

Murder ain't so bad. I've almost done it. Premeditated to the max.

Haven't you ever wanted to murder someone so badly that you could barely bear that burden?

 

He is a sports presenter who was criticised for comparing radical Islam to Nazism, which you said contributed to the "hate industry" when I asked you what you think earlier in this thread.

 

Interesting, I never knew I had such powers. Thanks for the heads up!

 

Radical Islam is a bad thing. However, it isn't similar to national socialism or nazism. Explaining why is a long story, but I can provide you with one hint. Radical Islam will accept individuals from all races, ethnic groups or skin colour, but Nazism won't.

 

Exactly

 

How many people has national socialism or nazism killed in the last 70 years?

WTF? What about religious group's?

 

Jesus was the prophet of Peace.
Mohammed was a pedophile warlord who killed many people
for worldly gain.
Attempting to compare the two is the grossest form of moral
equivalency I have ever encountered.